The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting and, I think, well balanced article on plans of some Christians agencies to evangelize as they offer aid in Iraq, possible effects of that and generally the balance of right to express one's religious beliefs by evangelizing and that of being free from intrusion.

(BTW, a few years ago, when my kid brother left for diplomatic post in Iran I took care about letting his house; the tennant was a Southern Baptist missionary with family: most friendly folks!)

I really, reeaaaally loathe evangelists.

"Here is food, Here is water... now let me tell you a little about Jesus".

I personally think its a really low thing to do.

I personally think its a really low thing to do.

Why? Do you think the offer of aid for physical needs is disingenuous? If so, I believe I can understand your viewpoint. However if you think that spiritual aid should not be coupled with physical aid, I flatly disagree. Evangelists believe that the spiritual need is far greater than the physical need and so it makes perfect sense that they would attempt to bring spiritual truth to others. An evangelist would consider the physical needs a person has temporary, but the spiritual needs eternal. Thus it is certainly not abusive or uncompassionate for evangelists to attempt to address spiritual needs, though if you don’t agree with the spiritual premise they are coming from I can certainly understand how you think their actions are misguided. If free thought is valued we must also value the rights of others to follow their ideas, however much we might disagree with them.

Evangelists believe that the spiritual need is far greater than the physical need and so it makes perfect sense that they would attempt to bring spiritual truth to others.

Yup, it makes perfect sense. To the Evangelists. To those who don't share the same beliefs as the Evangelists, it looks disingenuous.

To those who don't share the same beliefs as the Evangelists, it looks disingenuous.

True, and I understand this, especially since there has been some very bad evangelism in the past (like the crusades). I think Christians have to be very careful how in how they approach evangelism and make sure they aren’t doing more harm than good, especially in places like Iraq.

There are evangelists who go into countries without bothering to learn about the people or understand their culture. This is really bad all around and only breeds mistrust. However, a good evangelist learns about the culture so he or she can approach people in a way that they understand and be as non-threatening as possible. An good evangelist must always be interested in the welfare (both spiritual and physical) of the people that he or she is trying to reach; anything else really is disingenuous no matter who’s looking at it.

I have a hard time believing that. Americans evangelizing in America, where they have had decades of firsthand experience with the culture, are offensive, condescending, and aggressive. Maybe it's better overseas, but I have a hard time believing that someone hardcore enough to fly to a ``hostile'' country wouldn't be even more aggressive.

I'd have no problem with it if they said ``Here's some food, water, and a Bible,'' but that's not what I've seen them do.

I have a hard time believing that. Americans evangelizing in America, where they have had decades of firsthand experience with the culture, are offensive, condescending, and aggressive. Maybe it's better overseas, but I have a hard time believing that someone hardcore enough to fly to a ``hostile'' country wouldn't be even more aggressive.

I think that your experiences in America are very likely different than those who interact with evangelists sent abroad. Here it is easy to be tactless in the name of Jesus because the bar is very low to entry. Since we can “find Jesus” on Sunday and be out preaching on Monday, very often maturity is lacking as people try to evangelize. Add to this that one of our great freedoms in this country is to say whatever we want, offend whomever we want, and get away with it, and it’s easy to understand why evangelism can be so disingenuous here in the U.S. I probably get more frustrated than you do when I see our freedoms utilized by open-air preachers who yell at people about hell and then feel vindicated when people sneer at them.

This behavior is in sharp contrast to all of the evangelists to other countries that I have met, however. They all are very well educated as to the new culture they will be in and show a real heart for the people that they are trying to reach. I’ve sat and listened as they’ve explained cultural ideas that made no sense to me, but nevertheless were essential to understand in order to interact peacefully with those they were trying to help.

I think the reason for all of this is that the bar is much higher for those who are sent to other countries. There is a completely different level of commitment between running up to someone at a gas station to thrust a tract in his or her face, and moving your loved ones across the globe into strange and unknown areas, many times risking death for merely speaking your faith. You might expect that only the “hardcore hostile” Christians will want to make the trip, but I think it’s the reverse. The “hostile” Christians tend to be the immature ones, many times not even serious believers who are treating religion like a fad. Others use belief as a weapon to inflict discomfort on others and bolster their egos. However, this is not an indicant of strong faith: it is the weakest kind, and these are not the individuals I see going overseas.

I realize that there are always going to be bad representations of Christianity, a fact that saddens me a great deal. I’ve known many evangelists, though, and I can tell you they are the most compassionate and noble people I’ve ever met.

I'd have no problem with it if they said ``Here's some food, water, and a Bible,'' but that's not what I've seen them do.

In the end, I think you and I’d agree here, which actually was my point to begin with.

I don't like anybody pushing anything on anyone. If I'm seeking religion, I'll find you. Don't tell me what I should believe in. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

I agree completely. And trying to turn people Christian in a Muslim country just seems extra-absurd. "All that stuff you've known your whole life, from your friends, family, and ancestry - well it's all wrong. It's all about Jesus and ended there." It's just perverse. But I think the whole of religion is a sham, and hate to see it propogated. I know that's not going to be their intent, but I think it will often end up that way. And if Bush ends up supporting it, directly or not, well it's one more thing I dislike about him.

I wonder if the evangelists are unwittingly signing up the locals who've actually talked to them for a good stoning-to-death after they've left town? I wonder if any convert to Muslim? They'd sure better stick close to their friends, the "Iraqi Christians", if there really are any.

I wonder how folks would feel if there were Islamic evangelists trying to convert people in the US en masse. Or Buddhist. Or Shinto. Or Voodoo. Or any of the other hundreds of religions on the planet.

Do you think the offer of aid for physical needs is disingenuous?

I certainly do, when the offer of aid becomes contingent upon listening to some evengelical Christian dispute and disparage the recipient's religious heritage, a heritage that goes back thousands of years.

Try a little mind-experiment here... pretend that, due to admittedly improbable circumstances, a tornado went through your town, and the only source of relief was a Muslim organization. How would you feel when they brought their relief package to the remnants of your home and told you "...here are some supplies, but you must understand that your eternal soul is in jeopardy because you are an infidel, worshipping a false deity. Muhammed is the one true God, and you must give up your sinful ways if you are ever to achieve salvation..."

I bet you wouldn't like it very much.

tanstaafl.

I wonder how folks would feel if there were Islamic evangelists trying to convert people in the US en masse.

Religious freedom is guaranteed in the U.S. You're allowed to "convert" anyone you want with literature, preaching, etc. which I'm sure you've noticed at the airport, out on the streets of a busy city, or at your front door. The U.S., while being predominantly Christian, allows its citizens to practice any religion they choose. So as long as "conversion" doesn't involve holding a gun to one's head, it's perfectly fine over here. In many countries in that neck of the woods, however, it wouldn't go over quite as well.

That being said, I would hope that those who wish to distribute food and water are giving it out regardless of whether someone listens to their preaching or not. Having the aid be conditioned upon being beseiged with "Yay, Jesus!" chants would be rather unscrupulous. But I doubt that's the case. I think these people will try to make sure the word is spread, but beyond that, I don't think there's any problem with it.

Hey, SOMEONE has to do the aid work. There aren't enough non-religious volunteers to do it, so why not let the Bible-thumpers do it?

``... Muhammed is the one true God ...''

I think that you have a less than encyclopedic knowledge of Islam, Doug , but I agree with your point otherwise.

Hey, SOMEONE has to do the aid work.

Well, there aren't enough that aren't illegally being denied access, at any rate. But I thought the Red Cross, generally did a pretty good job.

Muhammed is the one true God, and you must give up your sinful ways if you are ever to achieve salvation..."

Muslims believe in the same god Christians do, and it isn't Muhammed.

Yeah. What he said. If someone were to ask an aid worker something like "Why are you here?", that would open the door for the aid worker to say "I believe that's what Jesus calls us to do." If the person asking doesn't take the introduction of religion to the conversation and continue with it, then it's time to STHU (Shut The Heck Up) about it.

I remember waiting for the subway in Toronto one day, and there was a really fat black lady walking up and down the platform (in bare feet, no less), singing gospel songs at the top of her off-key lungs. There was a very definate bubble of space around her, wherever she went. When the train came, I got on. Following me were a couple of black teenage girls, all dolled up in the fashion of the day; lots of makeup, tight jeans, etc. The fat lady came up and blocked their way into the train, and before letting them through, shouted at them that "You might think you're pretty on the outside, but you're ugly on the inside. You need to Repent!" I couldn't help but sit there and think... "lady, if there's ever a wrong way to spread the word, you've got it nailed." Who's going to be receptive to that?

Otherwise, I think they're a great deal of fun -- if I have nothing better to do, I make them work for it, before telling them I'm quite happy with my current set of beliefs. Either that, or try to convert them to *my* church.

I think that your experiences in America are very likely different than those who interact with evangelists sent abroad.

Here is an example of a guy somewhere in between - an Army chaplain in Iraq. I find it almost comical.

The world is full of idiots.... well meaning as they are zealous.
For every nasty missionary story of forced evangelism you can find I can find a story of someone searching for something they didn't have and finding it in Jesus Christ by way of some missionary.

My initial thought was to counter each idea presented individually, but I thought better of myself. Christians aren't any smarter or dumber than anyone else. We just can't seem to keep the dumb ones out of the post.

By the way, the general line on forced attendence of a sermon, lecture, bible study is usually drawn on the nature of the service. For example I have no problem asking someone to listen to a sermon in order to get magazines, candy, etc. However food and medical supplies are given, at least within my denomination, without such hurdles.

I agree. As I said elsewhere, I understand that people have need to share their deeply held beliefs, especially when they feel that by doing so they might be doing greater good.

I posted the first story to stress how thin is the line walked by missionaries in general, and particularly in places like Iraq, and the other one I just found so stupid to be almost amusing.

Here is an example of a guy somewhere in between - an Army chaplain in Iraq. I find it almost comical.

I think it's incredibly cruel. You have no idea how desperate some of those people are for a shower. That man should be relieved of his duties.

I think it's incredibly cruel. You have no idea how desperate some of those people are for a shower. That man should be relieved of his duties.

I agree, of course, and have no intention of even trying to imagine spending two weeks in desert, in battle gear, without shower. But I still think the situation is kind of comical in 'Black Adder' style.

I'd have no problem with it if they said ``Here's some food, water, and a Bible,'' but that's not what I've seen them do.

I'd have a problem even with that, unless -- and I think this is the issue here -- the food and water are also available without Bible. Making humanitarian aid contingent on accepting evangelism is a crime against freedom of religion and a crime against humanity. Now again, I'm not saying that's what respectable partisan aid agencies such as Christian Aid do -- although it sounds like the same can't be said for Samaritan's Purse -- but even the appearance that this might be so, is so damaging to other cultures that it's IMO worth aiming for completely secular aid-giving in order to avoid it. (Even if the starving peasant in the war-destroyed village only thinks he must renounce his religion to get the food or medication which is the only alternative to death, he will probably do so.)

(And it's not a problem unique to the food-water-and-Bible stage of outreach. The "classical" missionary in the jungle, where the bribe is more like radios-penicillin-and-Bible, is just as guilty of deceitfully using a supremacy of material wealth and goods in order to purport a supremacy of spiritual insight. I do get angry when I think of all the indigenous cultures, the religious microclimates, which could have been documented and preserved by the West instead of being lost forever, slashed-and-burned in order to grow Christians. Such wanton, unthinking, systematic destruction of human nature! Such cultural genocide!)

I accept though that there are good arguments against banning religious aid agencies. One is that aid agencies need large stocks of moral and ethical human beings, and many organised religions are good places to find such human beings; it shouldn't thus be a surprise to find aid agencies extensively staffed by religious people. Another, less clear-cut, justification is that rich Western fundamentalist religions are simply not going to donate money to secular aid causes, whereas they will to religious ones -- it's possible that the good the extra money does offsets the harm done by their crimes against religious freedom. You'd need to be one heck of a hardliner to want your children unevangelised but dead, even if fed but evangelised were the only other option.

Basically, I agree that it's a very knotty problem, especially when played out against the backdrop of an animosity as old as the Crusades or as the fall of Byzantium.

Peter

guilty

This was enough of a digression from a digression to miss the cut for the previous post, but I bet FerretBoy and the Reverend would be interested in knowing what I mean by that word, lacking as I do the Christian, salvation-by-grace concept of a sin problem as FerretBoy described way over there in that other thread.

As I've mentioned before, I tend to think that when it comes to cosmic verities, what you see is what you get. Lots o'hydrogen, a few big spherical rocks, some peculiar long-chain carbon compounds on one ot the rocks, the evolution of species -- the crystalline symmetry of Canary Wharf different only in complexity and scale from that of snowflakes on lifeless Europa or Pluto.

And we are human beings. No-one can promise us more, and no-one should grant us less. Evolution has equipped us with almost limitless capacities for wisdom, joy, love, understanding and peace. (And their opposites.) That is our humanity and our humanity is our glory. That which diminishes another's humanity -- that which dehumanises -- is, I believe, the only sin. Every other ethical rule on the books is just an elaboration of that one.

Peter

I'd have a problem even with that, unless -- and I think this is the issue here -- the food and water are also available without Bible.

I agree in general, although simply handing someone something in the general vein of ``I think you might get something out of this'' without any other pressure is fairly innocuous. I think it's along the same lines as the Gideon organization that, at least in the US, puts Bibles in many hotel rooms for free. (Of course, I'd hate to think the outcry that would occur if some organization were to start also placing Qu'rans or Bhagavad Gitas or Torahs or whatever else you might have.)

I don't think that saying ``feel free to take one'' is wrong. It just provides the possibility for increasing knowledge, and despite my religious misgivings, understanding someone else's beliefs has the strong possibility of helping one empathize with them more.

On the other hand, I understand where you're coming from, that a Bible forced into someone's hands is offputting and makes it feel like a requirement, although I have no problem throwing away Chick tracts at the next trash can.

Of course, I'd hate to think the outcry that would occur if some organization were to start also placing Qu'rans or Bhagavad Gitas or Torahs or whatever else you might have.

I don't think there would be much at all. The last time I was in Hawaii on a business trip I looked in my hotel room drawer and found a book of writings about Budda along side the requisite bible. I actually read through quite a bit of it during my trip (you can see how much fun I am to travel with!) and found some very revealing differences between it and the parables of Jesus.

As for the rest of this thread, I've been trying not to respond to every post, as that tends to make for a very closed, uninformative discussion that is more focused on one person’s beliefs than fostering any meaningful exchange of ideas. Thus I’ve been very interested in a lot of what’s been said, and I’ve learned a few things about the “outsider’s” view of evangelism. At this point, however, there are a few points I’d like to make:

1. There are two reasons evangelism is offensive: the message itself and the method employed to deliver the message. While a Christian can (and should) do nothing about the offensiveness of the message (how can we change it since it is the core of what we believe to be true?), methods should always be questioned to make sure that what the listener is responding to is the message, not the method of delivering it.

2. Christianity is about a personal decision to trust Jesus as Savior and cannot/ should not be coerced. The reason for this is not so much ethical as it is rational: in Christianity, God is interested in the heart more than deeds. People baptized against their wills still have the same faith after the process as they do beforehand. While other religions do believe that people are changed by being forced to practice certain rituals, Christianity does not teach this, though clearly some have done it anyway (the Crusades, the chaplain from Bonzi’s link).

3. The morality of evangelism directly corresponds to the truth. If Christianity is true and there are consequences for not believing it, it would be immoral for Christians to not do everything possible to help others believe. On the other hand, if Christianity isn’t true, then it is immoral (if there is such thing as morality; see Peters’ post above) to proclaim a lie as if it were the truth.